Every human being, from the time of his conception, is a creature and child of God, made in His image and likeness, an infinitely precious soul; and that the unjustifiable or inexcusable taking of life is always sinful. -Affirmation of St.Louis, 1977
This is not a political blog. Nonetheless, on the life issue, just as the slavery issue 150 years ago, politics and morality get mixed together. When political issues and moral issues intertwine, it is necessary to make a statement.
Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Susan Reimer criticized John McCain's choice of a running-mate, Sarah Palin Governor of Alaska, as unfit to hold office for a reason that the writer believes to be self-evident: In her September 1, op-ed Reimer wrote: "You want to look good to the Evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down syndrome child... A woman who made the decision to carry to term a baby she knew to be developmentally disabled."
No argument was made to explain why this should be held against Gov. Palin. Apparently, in Ms. Riemer's world, it is obvious to her readers that any mother who does not choose to snuff out the life of a handicapped child is not fit to become Vice President of the United States. Equally disturbing to her anti-life view is Ms. Reimer's assumption that the public actually is duly horrified.
Reimer went on: "Does McCain think we will be so grateful for a skirt [sic] on the ticket that we won't notice that she's anti-abortion...?" Since when is the abortion issue a women's issue among voters in the United States? The old game of treating liberal abortion laws as a women's issue is not only dishonest, but insulting. Many of the pro-life leaders and advocates in the U.S. are women, and many of the pro-abortion advocates are men- after all, a certain kind of man has the most to gain from shifting the burden of "doing the right thing" when contraception fails.
But, to add to this worn-out claptrap some new idea that the public should recoil from a mother because she chose life for a disabled child, and then to assume that the public reaction will be to shun such a mother, is a new low, even for modern liberals. Happily, I think Ms. Reimer's assumption is dead wrong, and that most people will not be horrified.
It is worth adding the perspective of history. Often people wax over-dramatic by comparing people to the Nazis. In this case, however, it is not over-dramatic at all. The fact is, in the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, Reimer's view was the only permitted view. If Mrs. Palin's Down Syndrome child had been born in Hitler's Germany, he would have been killed by the state.
Why don't these modern liberals realize that they are embracing Nazi ideology by trying to create a super race, free from the defilement of disabled people? For now, their only difference with Hitler is that they want it to be done by a mother's choice rather than by legal mandate and force. If, however, they continue to assume that the public embraces their view, they are not far from accepting, in their own minds, this very kind of government intervention.
Politics aside, Mrs. Palin made the only choice that pleases God, since the alternative would have been murder. For us, that is the only issue for anyone facing this same choice.